Milaneseo v. Calvanese
| Decision Date | 28 May 1918 |
| Citation | 92 Conn. 641,103 A. 841 |
| Parties | MILANESEO v. CALVANESE. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Edward L. Smith, Judge.
Action by E. Milaneseo against John Calvanese. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
George W. Crawford, of New Haven, for appellant. Noble E. Pierce, of Hartford, for appellee.
The only error assigned on the appeal is the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant's answer.
The plaintiff's cause of action is founded upon a contract commonly called an agreement in restraint of trade, and it appears that the defendant agreed that he "will no( engage directly or indirectly in the fruit, ice cream, confectionery, and vegetable business, in the town of Southington, except in the employ of the plaintiff, for a period of three years from the date." Agreements of this character are not unlawful, but, on the contrary, such an agreement, if the restraint imposed upon the promisor is only partial, is reasonable, and founded upon good consideration, is valid in law, and what is a reasonable restraint must depend upon the circumstances of each case. If upon an inspection of the contract, it appears that the restriction does not go beyond what is necessary for the protection of the other party to the contract, the contract upon its face is valid. In this case the burden was upon the defendant, in order to avoid the obligations of the contract, to set up in his answer some facts or circumstances whereby the contract became unlawful. The answer fails to allege any such facts. It appears by the answer that at the time the contract was made the plaintiff and defendant were engaged in conducting a business in Southington, if not in company, under some arrangement by which it was expected that articles forming a legal partnership would be signed by them. But such divisions and controversies had arisen that it became inexpedient to continue the business in company and made a separation desirable for both parties. Under those circumstances the defendant sold out to the plaintiff and made the agreement which is the subject of this action. So far the answer discloses nothing in the circumstances surrounding the contract which renders the restraint upon the defendant to which he has agreed unfair or unreasonable. The town of Southington is a territorial division of the state, limited in area, and a limitation by the defendant of his right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilbao v. Goodwin
...extent that the trial court found that there was insufficient consideration, our review is plenary. See, e.g., Milaneseo v. Calvanese , 92 Conn. 641, 643, 103 A. 841 (1918) (adequacy of consideration is conclusion of law subject to plenary review).6 Neither party contests the existence of t......
-
DelVecchio Reporting Services, LLC v. Edwards
...to avoid the obligations of the contract, to set up in his answer some facts or circumstances whereby the contract became unlawful, " id., page 642. (a) In this case the covenants sought to be enforced involve non-solicitation of clients or prospective clients and non-use or disclosure to o......
-
Town Bank and Trust Co. v. Benson
...is true that a determination as to the sufficiency of the consideration is a question of law based upon the evidence; Milaneseo v. Calvanese, 92 Conn. 641, 643, 103 A. 841; the plaintiff's failure to submit to the court affidavits or other evidence tending to establish the market value of t......
-
Pediatric Occupational Therapy Services, Inc. v. Town of Wilton, No. X06-CV-02-0174833 S (Conn. Super. 4/7/2004)
...respects. Id., 534. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the covenant's restrictions. Milaneseo v. Calvanese, 92 Conn. 641, 642 (1918). It has long been clear that, in order to be valid, a post-employment restraint on an employee must be limited to that rest......